DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 2 “alchohol” should read “alcohol”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the upper surface of the board" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Please note, claims 11-13 are rendered indefinite as a result of their dependency on claim 10.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the opposite side” and “the side of the board" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitations "in the direction" and “the surface” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The term “substantially” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Please note, claim 17 is rendered indefinite as a result of their dependency on claim 16.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites “more than 30 wt% of plant fibers”, while claim 1 recites “between 20 wt% and 90 wt% of plant fibers”. Thus, claim 2 fails to include the upper limit of the weight percentage limitation of claim 1.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and recites “less than 80 wt% of plant fibers”, while claim 1 recites “between 20 wt% and 90 wt% of plant fibers”. Thus, claim 3 fails to include the lower limit of the weight percentage limitation of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert et al. (WO 2018234561 A1), hereinafter referred to as BAERT.
Regarding claim 1, BAERT teaches a panel, wherein the panel comprises a board (lines 33-34, p. 1: a floor panel comprising a laminate),
wherein the board is based on Mg and MgChloride, or wherein the board is based on MgO and MgSulphate (lines 33-35, p. 3: in addition to the magnesium oxide in the core layer and the upper crust layer, the core layer and/or the upper crust layer(s) comprises magnesium sulphate and/or magnesium chloride);
wherein the board comprises between 20 wt% and 90 wt% of plant fibers (lines 12-19, p. 4: the core layer and/or the upper crust layer(s) comprises wood fibres; the upper crust layer comprises at least 10 wt.% wood, and more preferably between 40 and 50 wt. % wood). BAERT teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 2-3, BAERT teaches the panel as in claim 1, wherein the board comprises more than 30 wt% of plant fibers (claim 3) and less than 80 wt% of plant fibers (claim 3) (lines 12-19, p. 4: the core layer and/or the upper crust layer(s) comprises wood fibres; the upper crust layer comprises at least 10 wt.% wood, and more preferably between 40 and 50 wt. % wood). BAERT teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 4, BAERT teaches the panel as in claim 1, wherein the plant fibers are selected from wood fibers, bamboo fibers, or straw fibers (lines 24-25, p. 4: natural fibres, in particular cellulose fibres, such as bamboo fibres or straw fibres).
Regarding claim 9, BAERT teaches the panel as in claim 1, wherein the board comprises a plurality of layers having a different composition, wherein each of the plurality of layers are based on MgO and MgChloride, or based on MgO and MgSulphate (lines 33-35, p. 3: in addition to the magnesium oxide in the core layer and the upper crust layer, the core layer and/or the upper crust layer(s) comprises magnesium sulphate and/or magnesium chloride).
Regarding claim 14, BAERT teaches the panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein the board is symmetrical through its thickness (see BAERT at lines 17-20, p. 2: during production of floor panels with different desired panel thicknesses (e.g. 6, 8, and 10 mm), one may take the abovementioned (uniform) laminate of layers as (uniform) starting point).
Regarding claim 16, BAERT teaches the panel as in claim 1, wherein the panel comprises coupling parts at opposite edges of the panel, wherein the coupling parts are substantially provided in the board (lines 6-7, p. 3: the core layer, comprises a first pair of opposite edges, said first pair of opposite edges comprising complementary coupling parts),
wherein the coupling parts are basically shaped as a tongue and a corresponding groove, wherein the groove is bordered by an upper lip and a lower lip, wherein the tongue and the corresponding groove provide in coupled condition a locking in the direction perpendicular to the surface of the coupled panels,
wherein the lower lip comprises a locking element, and the tongue comprises a corresponding locking element; wherein the locking elements are configured for providing a locking in the direction parallel with the coupled panels and perpendicular to the coupled edges (Figs 2-7 and lines 27-28, p. 9: the coupling parts form a locking system, which effects a locking in the plane of the panels and perpendicular to said edges; lines 10-14, p. 10: the coupling parts 8- 9 principally also may be considered a tongue and groove coupling, wherein the locking part 27 functions as a tongue, whereas the groove in which this tongue gets seated, is defined by the locking part 26 functioning as the upper lip, and the first hook-shaped portion 18 functioning as the lower lip).
Claims 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (US 20200047469 A1), hereinafter referred to as FANG.
Regarding claim 1, FANG teaches a panel (paragraph [0004]: a weather-resistant composite floor), wherein the panel comprises a board,
wherein the board is based on Mg and MgChloride, or wherein the board is based on MgO and MgSulphate (paragraph [0089]: the mineral base material contained 30 parts of magnesium oxide, 1 part Magnesium Sulfate, and 15 parts of magnesium chloride);
wherein the board comprises between 20 wt% and 90 wt% of plant fibers (paragraph [0031]: the raw material of the modified mineral layer of the present invention includes 20-24 parts of the wood chips). FANG teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, FANG teaches the panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein a paper layer provided with a thermoset resin is adhered to the upper surface of the board (paragraphs [0014: pasting a wear-resistant paper onto a top layer of an artificial mineral board, pasting a balance paper onto a bottom layer of the artificial mineral board, and hot pressing to obtain a semi-finished product of the weather-resistant composite floor; and [0063]: immersing a decorative paper with a mixture containing an adhesive and a wear-resistant material to obtain the wear-resistant paper; the adhesive preferably includes a melamine resin).
Regarding claim 11, FANG teaches the panel as claimed in claim 10, wherein the thermoset resin is a melamine formaldehyde resin (paragraph [0046]: and the adhesive preferably includes a polyurethane adhesive and/or a melamine formaldehyde resin adhesive).
Regarding claims 12, FANG teaches the panel as claimed in claim 10, wherein at the side opposite to the side of the board onto which a paper layer is adhered, a resin-provided paper layer is adhered to the board as counterbalancing layer (paragraph [0014]: pasting a balance paper onto a bottom layer of the artificial mineral board).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FANG in view of Tagge et al. (US 20030219580 A1), hereinafter referred to as TAGGE.
Regarding claim 8, FANG teaches the panel as claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the plant fibers are coated with a sizing or with a resin.
However, TAGGE discloses a method of producing a fiber-reinforced composite for residential and commercial construction comprises systematic microstructure engineering, designed to create construction materials of controlled morphology at low cost and superior strength, thermal/sound insulation and moisture/fungus/microbial resistance than comparable unreinforced alternatives; such materials contain natural, synthetic, or inorganic fibers or particles having chemically modified surfaces, e.g., the attachment of a multifunctional polymer to a fiber or particle alters the properties of the particle, such as its water-repellent characteristics, tailoring the properties for specific applications (see TAGGE at paragraph [0010]). TAGGE also discloses that particulate or fibrous materials are chemically treated to provide mold-resistance, water repellency or anti-staining (see TAGGE at paragraph [0014]). Additionally, TAGGE teaches that fibrous and particulate materials include cellulose materials, such as paper and wood fiber (see TAGGE at paragraph [0037]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the panel of FANG by utilizing plant fibers having chemically modified surfaces disclosed by TAGGE since TAGGE explicitly teaches chemically modifying surfaces of fibers alters the properties of the particle, such as its water-repellent characteristics, tailoring the properties for specific applications (see TAGGE at paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized plant fibers having chemically modified surfaces disclosed by TAGGE in the panel of FANG in order to alter the properties of the particle, such as its water-repellent characteristics, tailoring the properties for specific applications.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clement et al. (WO 2018172959 A2), hereinafter referred to as CLEMENT, in view of BAERT.
Regarding claim 1, CLEMENT teaches a panel (see CLEMENT at lines 31-37, p. 9: a panel in the form of a floor panel and/or wall panel and/or ceiling panel), wherein the panel comprises a board, wherein the board comprises plant fibers (see CLEMENT at lines 35-36, p. 5: the reinforcement is formed by fibers; and lines 4-6, p. 20: fibers consist of synthetic fibers in general and/or natural fibers in general and/or wood fibers).
While CLEMENT discloses that the board is characterized in that it can be made of mineral-based composed material (see CLEMENT at lines 26-28, p. 8), CLEMENT fails to explicitly teach wherein the board is based on MgO and MgChloride, or wherein the board is based on MgO and MgSulphate, and wherein the board comprises between 20 wt% and 90 wt% of plant fibers.
However, BAERT discloses a floor panel, in particular a magnesium oxide based floor panel (see BAERT at lines 3-4. p. 1). BAERT teaches that the application of magnesium oxide (MgO) as material in the floor panel leads to significant less flammability compared to traditional wood based and/or PVC based floor panels, wherein the MgO based floor panel may even be completely fire-resistant (inflammable); moreover, the application of MgO in the core layer and the crust layer(s) makes the floor panel also waterproof; additionally, the application of MgO in the core layer and crust layer(s) of the floor panel according to the invention leads to a floor panel which is less susceptible for temperature changes and is dimensionally stable during ambient temperature fluctuations (see BAERT at lines 4-12, p. 2). Additionally, BAERT teaches that in addition to the magnesium oxide in the core layer and the upper crust layer, the core layer and/or the upper crust layer(s) comprises magnesium sulphate and/or magnesium chloride (see BAERT at lines 33-35, p. 3). BAERT also teaches that the core layer and/or the upper crust layer(s) comprises wood fibres; the presence of wood fibres commonly improves the processability of these layers, which will facilitate the production of the floor panel as such. Moreover, the presence of wood fibres in the upper crust layer allows a decorative paper layer to be durable glued on top of said upper crust layer. Both wood and paper are cellulose based, allowing a relatively firm and durable attachment to each other. To this end, it is advantageous in case the upper crust layer comprises at least 10 wt.% wood, and more preferably between 40 and 50 wt. % wood (see BAERT at lines 12-19, p. 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the panel of CLEMENT by utilizing the board based on MgO and MgChloride or based on MgO and MgSulphate as disclosed by BAERT since BAERT explicitly teaches that the MgO based floor panel is fire-resistant, waterproof, less susceptible for temperature changes and dimensionally stable during ambient temperature fluctuations (see BAERT at lines 4-12, p. 2). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the amount of plant fibers to be at least 10 wt% as disclosed by BAERT since BAERT explicitly teaches that the presence of wood fibers improves the processability of these layers (see BAERT at lines 12-19, p. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the panel of CLEMENS to comprise MgO and MgChloride or MgO and MgSulphate, and at least 10 wt% of wood fibers as disclosed by BAERT in order to obtain a panel which is floor panel is fire-resistant, waterproof, less susceptible for temperature changes and dimensionally stable during ambient temperature fluctuations.
Regarding claims 5-6, CLEMENT as modified by BAERT teaches the panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein the board comprises an alkali resistant binder (claim 5), and wherein the alkali resistant binder is selected from latex, acrylic, polyurethane, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), ethylene vinylacetate (EVA), PVAc dispersion, acrylic styrene emulsion, silicate glue, silane and siloxanes (claim 6) (see CLEMENT at lines 21-24, p. 13: applying one or more of the following chemical products in the basic material layer: acrylic or methacrylic (co)polymers, PVA or EVA polymers, styrene/acrylic acid ester copolymers, silane or siloxane of silicone).
Regarding claim 7, CLEMENT as modified by BAERT teaches the panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein the board is free from glass fiber nets, free from glass fiber woven fabrics, and free from unwoven glass fiber structures (CLEMENT does not teach the board comprising glass fiber nets, glass fiber woven fabrics, and unwoven glass fiber structures, thus, reading on limitation of claim 7).
Regarding claim 10, CLEMENT as modified by BAERT teaches the panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein a paper layer provided with a thermoset resin is adhered to the upper surface of the board (see CLEMENT at lines 31-37, p. 9: panel comprises a top layer, which gives a decorative appearance to the panel; line 25, p. 12: melamine-based top layer; line 11, p. 17: melamine layer pressed thereon).
Regarding claim 13, CLEMENT as modified by BAERT teaches the panel as claimed in claim 10, wherein the upper surface of the panel comprises a relief (see CLEMENT at lines 23-24, p. 4: board characterized in that in the upper side thereof a relief is provided).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 9, 14 and 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 13, 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12637810 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-6, claims 1, 3-6 and 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12637810 B2 teach a board, wherein this board is a board comprising 5Mg(OH2)MgSO47H2O; wherein the board is based on magnesiumoxysulphate (MOS) based on MgO and MgSulphate; wherein the board is in a dried condition and retains residual humidity with a residual moisture content of 7 wt. % or below, and a residual moisture of more than 4 wt. % through a thickness of the board comprising MOS (claim 1);
wherein the board comprises plant fibers (claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12637810 B2)
wherein the plant fibers comprise one or more from wood fibers, bamboo fibers and straw fibers (claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12637810 B2);
wherein the board comprises at most 90% by weight or at most 80% by weight of plant fibers (claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12637810 B2);
wherein the board comprises more than 15 wt. % of plant fibers (claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12637810 B2);
wherein the board is impregnated with a binder and/or coated with a binder (claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12637810 B2);
wherein the binder is one of the following: latex, acrylic, polyurethane, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), ethylene vinylacetate (EVA), PVAc dispersion, acrylic styrene emulsion, silicate glue, solvent based one component or two component resin, silane or siloxanes (claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12637810 B2).
Regarding claim 9, claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12637810 B2 teaches a board, wherein this board comprises a plurality of layers having a different composition, wherein this board is a board comprising 5Mg(OH2)MgSO47H2O, wherein at least one of said layers is based on MgO and MgSulphate, wherein said board comprises at least three layers, wherein a centrally located layer has a different composition compared to at least one of the more outwardly located layers, wherein the board is in a dried condition and retains residual humidity with a residual moisture content of 7 wt. % or below, and a residual moisture of more than 4 wt. %, through a thickness of the one of said layers based on MOS and MgSulphate.
Regarding claim 14, claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12637810 B2 teaches the board, wherein the board is symmetric through its thickness.
Regarding claim 16, claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12637810 B2 teaches the panel, wherein the board is provided at at least two opposite edges with coupling means allowing to couple two such panels at the respective edges, wherein a vertical locking in a direction V1 perpendicular to the plane of coupled panels and/or a horizontal locking in a direction H1 perpendicular to the respective edges and in the plane of the coupled panels 1 is obtained; wherein said coupling means are basically shaped as a tongue and a groove, wherein the groove is bordered by an upper lip and a lower lip; wherein said lower lip and/or said upper lip comprises a locking element taking part in said horizontal locking, wherein the respective lip is at least partially provided in a layer of the board that comprises cellulose fibers.
Regarding claim 17, claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12637810 B2 teaches a panel, wherein the board comprises at least three layers, namely a centrally located layer and two more outwardly situated layers at each side of the central layer, wherein the more outwardly situated layers comprises a higher cellulose content than the central layer, and wherein the respective lip is provided at least partially, and potentially essentially or wholly in the outwardly situated layer situated at the bottom of said central layer, respectively situated at the top of said central layer.
Claims 1, 4 and 15-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-15 of copending Application No. 18529394 in view of Baert et al. (WO 2018234561 A1), hereinafter referred to as BAERT.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, claims 1 and 16 of copending Application No. 18529394 teaches a panel, wherein the panel is a floor panel, a wall panel or a ceiling panel, wherein the panel comprises a board and a decorative layer provided on the board, wherein the board is based on MgO and MgChloride or wherein the board is based on MgO and MgSulphate, wherein the decorative layer comprises a printed paper sheet being treated with a resin, wherein the resin is selected from melamine formaldehyde (MF), polyurethane (PU), latex, acrylate dispersion or a combination thereof; wherein the board comprises cellulose based material (claim 1 of copending Application No. 18529394); wherein the board is a multilayer board, wherein a top layer of the board comprises a higher percentage by weight of cellulose based material than at least a central layer of the board (claim 16 of copending Application No. 18529394).
While Application No. 18529394 claims the board based on MgO and MgChloride or MgO and MgSulphate, and comprising cellulose material selected from wood dust, wood fibers, wood particles, bamboo particles or paper fibers (see claim 15 of copending Application No. 18529394), the amount of plant fibers is not disclosed.
However, BAERT discloses a floor panel, in particular a magnesium oxide based floor panel (see BAERT at lines 3-4. p. 1). BAERT also discloses that the core layer and/or the upper crust layer(s) comprises wood fibres; the presence of wood fibres commonly improves the processability of the layers, which will facilitate the production of the floor panel as such. Moreover, the presence of wood fibres in the upper crust layer allows a decorative paper layer to be durable glued on top of said upper crust layer. Both wood and paper are cellulose based, allowing a relatively firm and durable attachment to each other. To this end, it is advantageous in case the upper crust layer comprises at least 10 wt.% wood, and more preferably between 40 and 50 wt. % wood (see BAERT at lines 12-19, p. 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the amount of plant fibers to be at least 10 wt% as disclosed by BAERT since BAERT explicitly teaches that the presence of wood fibers improves the processability of the layers (see BAERT at lines 12-19, p. 4).
Thus, claims 1 and 16 of copending Application No. 18529394 as modified by BAERT read on limitations of present claims 1 and 15.
Regarding claim 4, claim 15 of copending Application No 18529394 teaches the panel wherein the cellulose based material is selected from wood dust, wood fibers, wood particles, bamboo particles, paper fibers, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claims 16, claims 20-21 of copending Application No. 18529394 teach the panel, wherein the board is provided at at least two opposite edges with coupling means allowing to couple two such panels at the respective edges, wherein a vertical locking perpendicular to a plane of coupled panels and/or a horizontal locking perpendicular to the respective edges and in the plane of the coupled panels is obtained; wherein said coupling means are basically shaped as a tongue and a groove, wherein the groove is bordered by an upper and a lower lip.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANASTASIA A. KUVAYSKAYA/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights